home

"Clintonism" and the Netroots

Ed Kilgore writes an interesting post about Netroots attitudes towards Bill Clinton. Only problem - it is based on a false premise:

Chris [Bowers] and others didn't come to grips with Scott [Winship]'s underlying argument about the anti-Clinton worldview of the Netroots Left. And that's a shame.

Sorry Ed. Indeed, I think that is part of the whole problem of the discussion at TPMCAfe - the idea that the Netroots has some type of New New Left ideology. That simply is wrong. More.

A few days ago, I wrote a diary on the TPM discussion and the Netroots "ideology." Ironically, I cite Ed Kilgore as leading to the proper view of the Netroots ideology:

Ed Kilgore hints at some of it:
Matt differs from a number of other progressive netroots prophets (most notably Markos Moulitsas) in emphasizing the ideological, as opposed to simply partisan, nature of the "movement." . . . Matt's brief note on the relationship of the netroots with the Kerry presidential campaign also doesn't quite get around to mentioning that the unhappiness of bloggers with KE04 was more than echoed by DC establishment Democrats. . . . So it's all a bit more complicated than the usual netroots versus Establishment--or left versus center--analysis tends to admit. As anyone who reads progressive blogs or subscribes to progressive sites will readily acknowledge, the single largest political change enabled by the Internet revolution has been centrifugal, not centripital. Almost overnight, hundreds, maybe thousands, of well-informed and articulate advocates whose views would in the past have been consigned to the cranky confines of Letters to the Editor columns have been given a platform that rivals newspapers and magazines in readership and influence. . . .

Ed is right as far as he goes, but he downplays the key component that has been the glue of the Netroots - the very real rejection of the Establishment Media and Democratic Party by the Netroots. To me that is the critical agreement that defines the Netroots. Perhaps I am merely reflecting my own blog experiences. I posted at daily kos almost exclusively for 3 years. And that was certainly what undergirded our views.

We felt, and feel, that the Democratic Party was not fighting for core Democratic values. We felt, and feel, that the Media had accepted the Republican narrative of politics and that Democrats had simply accepted it. We felt, and feel, that organizations like Ed's DLC were undermining the Democratic Party by emphasizing the need to be more like Republicans, or the need to neutralize "values" issues. We felt, and feel, they were simply wrong on the politics.

Ed now posits that, regarding Clinton, the Netroots thinks:

1) Bill Clinton got elected by accident (a combination of Bush 41's political stupidity, and Ross Perot's third-party candidacy), and then spent much of his first term betraying his core progressive constituency by focusing on deficit reduction, supporting free trade, and refusing to fight for single-payer universal health care;

2) After his first-term record discouraged the Democratic base and created a Republican landslide, Clinton got re-elected by "triangulating," caving into Republicans on welfare reform in particular.

3) Clinton's apostasy from progressive principles led to a meltdown of the Democratic Party in Congress and in the states.

4) Clinton's political guidance snuffed Al Gore's 2000 campaign, and his "centrist DLC" acolytes led Democrats into an appeasement strategy that killed the party in 2002 and 2004. Moreover, it became obvious that Clintonism represented not just appeasement of the political Right, but a subservience to corporate interests that Clintonites relied on for campaign contributions.

5) The revival of the Left and of the Democratic Party in 2006 involved an implicit repudiation of Clintonism.

Who thinks that Ed? Number 1 is simply absurd and I know of no Netroots person that ascribes to that view. Give us some credit Ed. We know that Perot probably hurt Clinton in 1992, as Clinton held a double digit lead until Perot reentered the race.

Number 2 is equally absurd and I know of no one in the Netroots who says it. If anything, the Netroots has looked to the REPUBLICAN political activity from 1992 to 1994 as sort of a model. You may have heard this one Ed - Fighting Dems.

I have heard number 3 a bit. And there is a a truth buried in the oversimplification - to wit, Clinton DID separate himself from the Democratic Party after 1994 - becoming an island politician. And we do think that hurt the Party to some degree. Indeed, Democratic fortunes improved only AFTER Clinton started to fight back against Gingrich and the Republicans. The 1995 government shutdown was a pivotal POLITICAL turn and led to a significant Democratic recovery in the 1996, 1998 and 2000 elections.

As for number 5, I think Ed misunderstands the thinking of the Netroots here. I actually wrote a post on the subject:

When Jeralyn and other bloggers met with Bill Clinton last month, I mused this question:
I asked myself what I would have liked to discuss with Clinton. I thought of this issue most of all - 'does Clinton think his Third Way/New Democrat approach, that worked so well for him (did it work for the Dem Party?) in the 90s (of course since he is the best politician of his generation it is not clear that using of other approaches would not have worked for him) is the right political approach in today's hyperpartisan age of Bush Republicanism?'

In the past month, Bill Clinton has provided his answer:

Former President Bill Clinton rallied Iowa Democrats Saturday with a blistering attack on the Republican leadership in Washington . . . Republicans, who control the White House and Congress, have alienated rank-and-file voters by working for the interests of the wealthy and painting opposing viewpoints as unpatriotic, Clinton said in his 45-minute speech at Hy-Vee Hall in Des Moines.

More Clinton:

I have never seen the American people so serious. Listen to how quiet it is in here . . . And I think I know why, because people know things are out of whack - that fundamental order of the rhythm of public life and our common life as Americans has been severely disturbed," he said. . . . He marked the differences between his administration and President Bush's, and faulted the current president for ushering in ideological leaders who had the interests of the few as priorities.

Unlike Barack Obama who is still searching for "common ground" with extremist Republicans and foregoing the partisan fight for the Party he belongs to, Bill Clinton has realized that his Third Way approach does not work in this climate:

Clinton -- who regards Rove with a mixture of admiration and disdain as the most effective modern practitioner of polarizing politics -- said in an interview that he has become fixated on the problem of how Democrats can learn to fight more effectively against the kind of attack President Bush's top political aide leveled. Associates of the former president said he thinks that Democrats Al Gore in 2000 and Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) in 2004 lost the presidency because they could not effectively respond to a modern media culture that places new emphasis on politicians' personalities and provides new incentives for personal attack.

While the Foley and Allen episodes burned Republicans, Clinton said in an interview earlier this year that he thinks the proliferation of media outlets, as well as the breakdown of old restraints in both media and politics, on balance has favored Republicans. Without mentioning Gore or Kerry by name, he complained that many Democrats have allowed themselves to become unnerved and even paralyzed in response.

"All of this is a head game, you know. . . . All great contests are head games," Clinton said. "Our candidates have to get to a point where they don't allow other people to define them as either people or as political leaders. Our people have got to be more psychologically prepared for it, and there has to be more distance between them and these withering attacks."
Amusingly, Ed writes:
I won't go into a refutation of these contentions until someone in the Left Netroots openly admits to them.

Then you won't have to Ed. But it would be interesting if you addressed our thinking on the subject.

Ed does end with a very interesting thesis - to wit, the DC Establishment ALSO rejected Clintonism:

Throughout and beyond the Clinton years, there persisted an enduring hostility to Clintonism in the establishment DC Democratic Party. It was evident in congressional (especially in the House) Democratic opposition to many of Clinton's signature initiatives; it got traction in Al Gore's rejection of Clintonism and everyone connected with it in his 2000 campaign; and reached fruition in 2002, when Democrats went forward with the anti-Clinton, Bob Shrum-driven message that we were "fighting" for prescription drug benefits at a time when the country was absorbed with national security concerns. Indeed, the primacy of Shrum--the only major Democratic strategist with no involvement in either of Clinton's' campaigns--in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 Democratic campaigns, is a good example of how the hated DC Democratic Establishment hasn't been Clintonian for a good while.

Ed goes too far when he argues that shying away from national security concerns and trying to run on "kitchen table" issues in 2002 amounts to anti-Clintonism. Clinton was not exactly known as the National Security President. But the rest of it is intriguing and worth considering.

So I agree with Ed when he writes "So: let's talk more about Clintonism, the Left, the Democratic establishment, and the netroots."

Let's do talk about them. But let's address the REAL arguments, not the imagined ones.

< Weedend Open Thread | Conservatives Demand Pardon For Lawless Border Agents >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    gore and kerry (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cpinva on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:07:53 PM EST
    both lost, not due to clinton, or their purported "extreme left" positions, but because they were both attacked, continuously, by the MSM. this group, the likes of frank rich, maureen dowd, et al, made up lies about both, especially gore, that had nothing to do with clinton.

    they continue to do it to this day, just witness comments regarding gore's documentary, which invariably start out with lies such as "al gore, who at one time claimed to have invented the internet", and you see a pattern. this pattern goes back at least to 1999.

    it's this unprecedented assault, by the MSM that got bush elected, twice. none of the other stuff matters, because most people weren't paying attention. they paid attention to nonsense about kerry windsurfing, which supposedly made him some kind of effite elite, unfit for the presidency, not to social security reform.

    they paid attention to the lies of the swiftboaters, lies shot down as such all over creation, but continuously given air time by the MSM, as though they had some validity.

    this allowed a guy who hid in the texas air national guard, when he bothered to show up for duty at all, to be seen as some kind of super patriot, while a decorated, combat wounded veteran, who volunteered for two tours in vietnam, was treated almost as a deserter, by the MSM.

    it's already started with mrs. clinton. until the netroots, and BTD & Co. comes to grip with that reality, any other discussion is moot.

    Big Tent (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 11:46:48 AM EST
    To answer your question:

    his Third Way/New Democrat approach, that worked so well for him (did it work for the Dem Party?)

    Did it? My answer is: obviously not, it was a complete disaster for the party.

    Some other items:

    1) Bill Clinton got elected by accident (a combination of Bush 41's political stupidity, and Ross Perot's third-party candidacy), and then spent much of his first term betraying his core progressive constituency by focusing on deficit reduction, supporting free trade, and refusing to fight for single-payer universal health care;

    You only address the Ross Perot issue here. You ignore the last section which I think was key in contributing to the 1994 election debacle.

    2) After his first-term record discouraged the Democratic base and created a Republican landslide, Clinton got re-elected by "triangulating," caving into Republicans on welfare reform in particular.

    You responded:

    Number 2 is equally absurd and I know of no one in the Netroots who says it.

    Clinton not only caved in to Republicans on welfare reform, he took credit for enacting what was essentially their legislation. It was one of the main themes of his re-election campaign. Where were you in 1996??

    You go on to say:

    If anything, the Netroots has looked to the REPUBLICAN political activity from 1992 to 1994 as sort of a model. You may have heard this one Ed - Fighting Dems.

    What does this have to do with what Clinton did in 1996?

    Let's face facts: Clinton eviscerated the Democratic Party. The hard proof is in the numbers of Democrats in Congress and statehouses when he came into office in 1993 compared to when he left. As president he accomplished virtually nothing for the traditional Democratic base. Indeed, he did more harm to New Deal policies than Ronald Reagan ever dreamed of. He may be a "fighting Democrat" now that he is safely out of office, but his real legacy is one of compromise and capitulation to the Gingrich Republicans.


    100% dead on (none / 0) (#23)
    by aahpat on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:06:20 PM EST
    I need say no more.

    Parent
    Resignation? (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:32:45 PM EST
    Resignation is not a requirement when a president has been impeached. The House impeached President Clinton for perjury, but the Senate did not convict him. Failing a conviction, the President remains in office and that is exactly what Clinton did.

    Huh? (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    Impeachment is like an indictment. It is not a guilty verdict. There is no opportunity to present any defense. That is partly of the funtion of the  removal process (trial, verdict and sentencing).

    As pointed out by GM, there is no consitutional requirement to resign after being impeached. There is something called due process of law, which among other things, guarantees the accused (President Clinton) the right to defend themselves (pre GWB, anyway).

    I am sorry, but to be blunt, I knew you lost it when you compared an affair with an intern and lying about it to  assumption of powers and rights for the executive branch not only not constitutionally condoned, but in some cases explicitly denied.

    Its one thing to promote a progressive liberal agenda, bemoan a president who did not push such an agenda far enough and another thing to what compare GWB has done to what President Clinton did. Some perspective is called for.

     

    LOL (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by aahpat on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 07:50:45 AM EST
    I'm supposed to accept the perspective of Jim Crow Clinton DLC sycophants and apologists?

    LOL!

    Like Clinton it is you who have no perspective or respect for the institution of the constitution. The relevent phrase is 'an appearance of impropriety'. Did Nixon wait until impeached and convicted? No. When public officials are caught debasing their high office they remove themselves out of respect for the institution. Usually long before any trial at all.

    And I still say that the constitution institution of impeachment was damaged by Clinton in his and his wife's egomaniacal quest personal glory.

    Bill Clinton damaged the institution of the constitution. George W. Bush has done nothing that can't be undone with good legislation. Clinton's damage to the constitution is permanent. Bush is a blip made significant only by the misteps of Democrats who themselves have not been willing to be a loyal opposition without a majority behind them.

    Parent

    You remind me (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 08:48:49 AM EST
    of your average HOA board of directors. Making it up as you go  along, listening to no-one,  and headed for trouble. Fortunately, as to the constitution you can't do much damage.

    Parent
    Take note! (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 09:25:05 AM EST
    Take note, dear friends at TalkLeft. Today (and today only) I am a "Jim Crow Clinton DLC sycophant and apologist!" Yeah!

    Parent
    You mean it's working? ;-) (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 09:48:09 AM EST
    Perspective (none / 0) (#34)
    by aahpat on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 08:03:53 AM EST
    One side is a Clinton supporter and Democrat.

    On the other an Independent voter who rejects the authoritarian rationalizations and sophistries of both the two dominance parties.

    Clinton and Clinton Democrats have no more resepct for the U.S. constitution than does Bush and the GOP. This is the most basic problem with the United States today. the two dominant parties spend all of their time being no better than a bunch of drug dealers forever looking for ways to circumvent and subvert the constitution for their mutual undemocratic dominance of America.

    Parent

    Netroots and Clinton (none / 0) (#1)
    by koshembos on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 06:28:08 PM EST
    The contrived exchange between ED K and Big D cannot hide the fact that the netroots have certain hostility towards Clinton. Using the point by point argumentation above, here what I believe to be the pertinent factors:

    1. Every extreme organization has a Bolshevik-like hostility for moderation.
    2. Netorots ignore the at least 1/3 of Democratic congresspersons and senators who are to the right of the party. There is only one Sanders.
    3. The left didn't want to change a dysfunctional social security system. The principles were right but the execution, the SS bureaucracy and process, was terrible. Had the left supported the needed reform, Clinton would have avoided the more Republican current solution.
    4. Netroots are by and large an upper middle class phenomenon. Clinton was dirt poor, single mothered, Southerner. What made Clinton "Black" made him also an odd fish for the netroots.
    5. Netroots are not really left; they are policy left. Union, poverty and communities are not high on the list. Clinton was much more involved with such issues.
    6. I think there is a strong personal antipathy between Clinton and the netroots crowd. Sax, sex and charisma are not what they are looking for.
    7. Gore lost because he campaigned against Clinton, was a lousy candidate and didn't learn anything from Clinton.
    8. Democratic appeasement is a complex result of: natural reaction to extremist opposition, lack of cohesion (the strength of the party), the loss of 94, a large group of conservative Democrats, weak leadership (Daschle and company), may be even some of Clinton's compromises.

    In general the scapegoat approach, it's the DLC, it's the NeoCons, it's the Jews is beyond the pale. I wish even the netroots will stop blaming a legitimate Democratic fraction (even if I don't agree with them), target Bush and Cheney and not people who write white papers and serve as second bananas. I'll leave Mel Gibson alone.

    I dunno (4.00 / 1) (#3)
    by aw on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:23:38 PM EST
    I think I counted about 26 strawmen there.

    Parent
    Thoughtful reply (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by koshembos on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:20:13 PM EST
    Such a thoughtful reply is all we look for. At least you did say that I support the terrorist.

    Parent
    Okay, but this will probably take me all night (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by aw on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:11:50 PM EST
    I'll start with number 1:
    Every extreme organization has a Bolshevik-like hostility for moderation.

    What extreme organization are you referring to and what do they have to do with the discussion topic?

    Parent

    How about number 2? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by aw on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:16:24 PM EST
    Netorots ignore the at least 1/3 of Democratic congresspersons and senators who are to the right of the party. There is only one Sanders.

    Who are you talking about, both in the netroots and the democratic congress members?  Which ones are to the right of the party?  Oh wait.  There is only one Lieberman.

    Parent

    Moving along (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by aw on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:22:04 PM EST
    to number 3:
    The left didn't want to change a dysfunctional social security system. The principles were right but the execution, the SS bureaucracy and process, was terrible. Had the left supported the needed reform, Clinton would have avoided the more Republican current solution.

    What does Clinton have to do with social security privatization (which is what I assume you're referring to)?  Also, tell us what this has to do with the topic at hand.

    Parent

    Number 4 (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by aw on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:36:12 PM EST
    Netroots are by and large an upper middle class phenomenon. Clinton was dirt poor, single mothered, Southerner. What made Clinton "Black" made him also an odd fish for the netroots.

    So Clinton is what, still poor, still not upper middle class, that the netroots (in all its variety) looks down on Clinton?  That blacks are odd fishes   for the netroots?  What?

    Is that a thoughtful enough reply?  I'd say what you want is "balance," equal weight and respect for untruthful crap and, yes, strawmen.

    I'll get to the rest of them when I get to them.

    Parent

    At least you didn't call for "civility" (none / 0) (#14)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:15:17 AM EST
    Blogofascism uber alles!

    Parent
    jkoshembos (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:33:21 PM EST
    Very interesting. As a social liberal, I have always wondered why I see  very little support for NHC, women's rights, gay rights, et al...

    I think you may have nailed something.

    Parent

    I'll admit it (none / 0) (#15)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:16:24 AM EST
    I had to smile at that one.

    Parent
    Because you eyes are closed? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 10:36:32 AM EST
    Molly B (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:42:45 PM EST
    Got proof?

    Let me be specific. While support is mentioned, I see no actual support. Instead I read continual complaints about Bush and the war.

    You are what you do.

    Parent

    Eyes still closed. Keep looking. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:55:56 PM EST
    Continuing from last night (none / 0) (#30)
    by aw on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:57:45 PM EST
    #5 Netroots are not really left; they are policy left. Union, poverty and communities are not high on the list. Clinton was much more involved with such issues.

    I think you are confusing the netroots with the DLC here.  The netroots most certainly acknowledge union concerns and are in solidarity with them. It is the basis of working people vs. the corporate establishment.   Poverty is certainly of major concern with the democrats and the left as are communities which know where the problems are.  What exactly, is your point?

    Parent
    We're all looking for sex and charisma (none / 0) (#31)
    by aw on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:59:38 PM EST
    I think there is a strong personal antipathy between Clinton and the netroots crowd. Sax, sex and charisma are not what they are looking for.

    Show me a republican who has it?

    Parent

    All of the above or none of the above (none / 0) (#32)
    by aw on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:06:42 PM EST
    Democratic appeasement is a complex result of: natural reaction to extremist opposition, lack of cohesion (the strength of the party), the loss of 94, a large group of conservative Democrats, weak leadership (Daschle and company), may be even some of Clinton's compromises.

    Pick one, I don't know what you're talking about and I don't care.  It's over.


    Parent

    Clintonism (none / 0) (#2)
    by DanAllNews on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:16:38 PM EST
    Clinton got elected not by accident, but by running as a centrist. If he caused the Republican landslide, it wasn't because he betrayed progressives, who were never his base anyway. It was more likely because he scared conservatives by turning to the left of where he'd campaigned and emphasizing universal healthcare and gay rights.

    Telecommuncations, personal privacy (none / 0) (#10)
    by sphealey on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:57:29 PM EST
    Telecommunications policy, media ownership policy, and personal privacy (in fact, personal liberties in general) are three areas where Mr. Clinton triangulated hard right, and where the nation is currently paying the price.  

    sPh

    So Gore lost because of Clinton's guidance? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:41:13 PM EST
    But he rejected Clintonism and everyone connected with it in his 2000 campaign?

    He must be able to sh*t golden eggs two, since those notions are pretty much in direct opposition to each other.

    Rub.  Bish.  


    golden eggs TWO? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:42:02 PM EST
    That was supposed to be "golden eggs, too".

    Clinton best for country (none / 0) (#16)
    by DARRYLMAST on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:53:23 AM EST
      Hilary Clinton is the best common sense tough Democrat on the block.  She is our best hope for bring back to stableness the mess Bush Corruption estroyed. So her number one agenda sould be:

      Lets produce enough ethanol gasoline to put the American car and commericail truck on the road without petroleum.  Lets use petroleum for military only.

      Imagine a trilion a year added to the Federal General fund from the America farmer paying taxes on bumper corn crops for gasoline.  Image the Saudi Royal families income dispersed among the America economy every year.

      Imagine gas price set at 1.49 from now on till eternity and no variance for bull**.  Image war mongalers without a cause.

      We can do this we need to plant 30 million acres of new corn in the United States.  We have farmers all over America ready to go.  I know ten in this area ready to plant and produce right now.

      Hilary can win John Edwards is a good man.  I support him to.  Hilary's only problem is Kenneth Star bull** investigations that led to nothing but slung mud all over them.  Ken Star needs to go to jail with George the criminal for setting up Everything Bandit George has done.

    I like how George the Felon let 60 minutes ride with him to humanize himself again.  Just remember nearly 200,000 people total have been killed since he has been in office and his dad got rich off it again.  Baker, Rice, Rumsfeld and the master mind Cheney all have gotten rich off everyones blood.  Blood money.

      Prices are dropping in the oil market because of the ethanol push. Lets push the door all the way open.

      Prove your a patriot.  Plant some corn.  Prove your blood is Red White and Blue.  Build a refinery.  Prove you love God and hate greed and inquity.  Fill your car with ethanol gasoline today.

      I acknowledge God in all things he is real.

    Darryl A. Mast  


    Veggie oil is better (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 11:26:28 AM EST
    Pollutes much, much less.  The government and industry should be perfecting the engines.  Right now, because no one is doing it, the people with these alternative fuel cars are going it alone.  Pretty much like my buddy in L.A.

    Parent
    Borat says: Nice! (none / 0) (#17)
    by Kevin Hayden on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:17:58 AM EST
    Scott Winship is onto something important here, and dissing his views because he seems to be dissing the intelligence or historical knowledge of netroots folk is no excuse for refusing to talk about it.

    I understand Jon Stewart's line better now, because my first thought when I read his piece was "I'm not going to be your monkey."

    The overly discussed topic's grown stale, so the 'refusal to talk' is itself a lie. And it irks me to hear someone calling for a conversation on a blog that has no commenting capability.

    Kilgore might as well urge me to mow the lawn at his venue. There's no lawn there, there'd be nothing gained if I could mow his invisible lawn, and he'd criticize the dandelions I missed in his imaginary yard.

    Clinton Best For Country (none / 0) (#18)
    by Kevin Hayden on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:25:12 AM EST
    DarrylMast: Hilary Clinton is the best common sense tough Democrat on the block.

    If you believe that, you:

    1. ought to learn how her name is spelled.

    2. explain what legislation she's passed that makes you admire her effectiveness.

    3. explain her platform that you think will restore stability.


    Family values vs. constitutional values (none / 0) (#22)
    by aahpat on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:03:30 PM EST
    " the idea that the Netroots has some type of New New Left ideology. That simply is wrong."

    There are no real netroots in America. Most of the blogosphere is Democrat and Republican party hack web sites guiding opinion to the status quo of right-wing Jim Crow America. There are few exceptions to this.

    Most opinion that does not strictly conform to the single-minded right-wing family values of the DLC and GOP are marginalized. I have been banned from many of the leading blogs including DKos, MyDD and TPFcafe because I was critical of the right-wing of the Democratic Party.

    The left-wing social justice, civil liberties and human rights constitutional values have almost no voice or representation in the American blogosphere.

    Right-wingers love to demonize as left-wing or liberal anyone who does not absolutely agree with them. this is how they have shoved most of America and especially the Democratic party to the right for the past three decades. Using demagoguery like soft-on-crime the right wing has goaded the Democrats to abandon any policies that defend human rights and social justice in favor of law-and-order policies that disenfranchise the poor, oppress urban minorities and dictate a moralistic over reason based reality.

    Bush Already Has Anticorruption Efforts Underway (none / 0) (#25)
    by bitsoys on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:30:14 PM EST
    To all of you malcontents who seem to think that our President is doing nothing to combat political corruption, check out ThePeacockReport.com to read about what the Bush Administration is doing about the problem. Darn naysayers.

    Clinton will lose the primary (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 09:26:53 AM EST
    Divisive, pro-war, failed spot at leading H-C during bills presidency and aside from 1 term as a senator, what else has she done?

    If I want a republican attitude, I will simply vote republican.  I don't need to vote for the democratic republican.

    Who is paying? (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 09:34:51 AM EST
    The subject of the mother's milk of politics, yes that's money, almost never comes up. Here is an article that asks some interesting questions.

    Wealthy associates of the group have been propping up the Netroots movement, enjoying the cachet of a ground up grass roots movement that's actually financed and, I'd argue, controlled from the top down by big money, just as is most all contemporary politics. The Times piece is an absolute must read.

    This may appear to be off subject. But if a few wealthy folks are supporting the doctrine Left then that will detract from those in the middle, while placing the control of the party ever more in the hands of the rich.

    What we have here is a contest between the power of the Clinton's to raise money, or any politican for that matter, and a few people who control the netroots through their money.

    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#41)
    by Sailor on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 12:37:52 PM EST
    And untrue to boot.

    Parent
    Gabriel (none / 0) (#40)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 10:44:31 AM EST
    Congratulations.

    Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#42)
    by DARRYLMAST on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 10:37:26 PM EST
    Under Bill Clinton we rebuilt this nation in Spartanburg SC we built 75 new schools, In Greenville SC we built 82 new schools during Clintons era we built a 22 million dollar library in Greenville. Rebuilt Columbus Street Port Authority, tore down and rebuilt a couple thousand houses in South Carolina alone.

    In A town near Rocky Mount NC under Clinton they tore down a whole town and rebuilt it because of Hurricane Floyd because slaves were sent through the town. In Rocky Mount and close surrounding area they tore down 5000 house. I tore down and cleaned up 66 houses.

    Katrina happened a couple years ago a couple billion has been raised and they can't even clean New Orleans up.  Sir Criminal George has spent 4 trillion a year when our government only take in 2.4 and we the people can't even put a new set of tires on a government truck much less accomplish anything but fill the pockets of the worse corruption to ever rack this country.

    Why Hillary in 2008

    Why Hillary Clinton because when her and her husband ran this country corruption was held in check and we the people prospered like no other time in human history.  They had one basic motto "Public money aught to actually be used for the people who paid it."

    Hillary and Bill we railroaded by the same crooks who have their hands stuck in all 300 million of we the people pockets today.  A bunch of common crooks who should be paraded on world television with long court hearings.

    Why Hillary Clinton because she is really on the side of every hard working American who gets up in the mourning.  How do I know this.  Gas in Inman and Spartanburg for 3 months in 1999 was 69 cents a gallon. True story.  Now its 2.55 a gallon and was 3.49 at one point.

    Its a sad day when a fat bastard is smiling and laughing when he made 400 million for himself, his company got a lion share of a 50 billion dollar subsidy every year, and raise gas prices for any excuse under the moon and has the nerve to say his empowerment is by patriots.  No The Republican Party are a bunch crooks that aught to be put in jail like they were in 1923 when President Warren Hardings whole cabinet went for essentially the same thing that is going on now.

    Hillary Clinton is the only chance we have to bring democracy back and re-empower we the people.  

    Next time you pull up the pump and you see the meter spinning way faster in the price then in the gallons meter just remember, It's George Bush who may actually get a few pennies off every gallon you pump.  That that fat bastard got a licence to steal from you from Godfahter George.  That While the pump is spinning there are 130,000 sons and daughter out risking their live to make sure George Herber Walker Bush and Jim Baker, Cheney, Wolfawitz are getting their share of the Federal General fund.

    You paid your 2.4 trillion a year and 1.4 trillion borrowed money for them the stick it in their pockets.  Bill and Hillary never did anything like that.

    I think they aught to impeach Bush and then charge him as a war ciminal and his whole cabinet and Wolfawitz and others and Install Hillary as president interim till we can have the 2008 election.

    Hillary for President April 21 2007.  Why not we need to clean the common trash out of the White House as soon as possible.

    I am a Christian and I am a Democrat.  I acknowledge God in all things.  I know about all the projects put in place by Clinton because I was a general contractor and worked on them.

    I seen what love for your fellow man under Clinton can do.

    I seen what hate and greed can do under Bush.

    I know that God can bring correction to our Government and I am praying every day that those who did damage to our democracy will have to spend an equal time in disgrace.  It is disgraceful for anyone to use God's name to steal the way they have.

    I Timothy 6:10
    For the love of money is the root of all evil and those that coveted after have erred from the faith and pierced us all through with many sorrows.

    We have endured our sorrows caused by Bush now it is time for him to endure his.

    So help us God

    Darryl Mast